No. I will not sugarcoat these ideas because they are dangerous.
Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"
Making decisions on the security of a billion $ network based on targeting a certain transaction fee is the definition of "fucktarded"
BIP100 is less fucktardalishous?
No, I'm increasingly getting the sense that BIP100 is equally broken. Having miners decide on the blocksize makes no sense from a game-theory point of view. The block size is there to put a check on their ambition.
i agree BIP100 and this idea are on about the same level of crazy.
The people running nodes have the right to claim decision over the block size as they are the ones to whom the costs are externalized.
no.
the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block"
and there you go, we have a way to transfer value for FREE but in the end everyone pays the tiny fee...
You've been drinking Adam? Your logic makes no sense. Does the VISA merchants pay for the deployment of the VISA network? If you answer no, as you should, you should realize why your comparison is "nutty".
Quote
the system should somehow allow for free tx, but encourage users to pay a fee, what better way then say "sorry only room for 10 free TX in this block
That is EXACTLY how it works right now so... why do you wanna change it?